Ok men create culture, but isnt it a little bit infuenced by the environment??

Ancient Greek philosophers for example. They lived in a wealthy friendly environment (enough resources, fertile grounds, gentle climate) which give them the time to think things over and they had(and still have) a very nice starry sky, which might have inspired them even more to think things over and become philosophy inclined.

I mean, the genetic factor maybe important, but doesnt the environment has its influence also (to raise or lower certain potentials)?

This almost sounds plausible until you look at Africa. Africa is very rich in natural resources and has a wonderful climate, yet only accounts 3% of all world trade.

The situation is Zimbabwe alone reinforces this claim. The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe confiscated farms from whites and gave them to blacks. The country went from a food surplus and stable economy to near starvation and 31% devaluation of currency. Care to explain this? Here's an article that further elaborates on this:

Okay, this is a long post. As much as I've tried to respond succinctly anyway, now would be a good time to pick out the points most relevant to the discussion. This will ensure our fingers don't erode away. Forgive any typos, I typed this out at great speed!

Well, I consider this to be a complex issue, and as such, there are a lot of issues and different perspectives to cover. WN is not something that can be summed up in just a few short paragraphs. This is part of the reason why I have so much disdain for opponents of WN, because they hardly go into any depth. That doesn't apply to you, but anyway...

Quote:

White American culture is indefinable because there isn't any particular thing shared by ALL white Americans. Americans in general however, share a common language, code of laws, shared levels of government intervention in their economy.. American culture doesn't include white culture.. since not all whites are American.

No, but we're talking about White American culture, so in this case, all White Americans are American.

Not every "American" shares a common language. In fact, a good many "Americans" are saying that we should not have a common language in America, because (according to them), such a thing would be "racist." So, keep in mind that multiculturalism includes multilingualism, so your point about common language is invalid, since a common language is in conflict with the ideology of multiculturalism.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, immigrants don't have the same respect for our laws and Constitutional principles. A lot of them speak of abrogating the First Amendment, because they don't even understand it or the principles behind it. People from Asia or Africa have no problem with that, because they've been living under authoritarianism for centuries. That's why I mentioned the fact that cultural loyalty is important, and they have none. They have no heritage of freedom, and as a result, they can't be trusted as stewards of freedom here in this country.

Quote:

Because there are cultural characteristics which unite all Americans.. as I've stated above. You seem to be confused about my perspective here. I don't see a range of distinct cultures which are all separate. A person can be part of any number of cultures as long as they don't conflict with each other. E.g. a person can't be both part of Christian and Islamic culture as they contain elements which are mutually exclusive.

American culture is a White culture. It can't possibly be anything else. It's not an Asian culture, nor is it an African culture, and it has very little in common with the tribal cultures of pre-colonial America. It can't possibly be anything besides a White culture. Non-whites may have imitated and adopted this culture, but it's still a White culture nevertheless.

Quote:

Well... FYI.. Russian Hip-Hop is a massive community.

Well, I guess you learn something new every day. I don't know why those with such a rich and varied culture as the Russians would want to embrace the absolute dregs of one America's sub-cultures. They used to complain about how decadent and degenerative American culture was, but somehow, black culture was never included in that. It's rather ironic, considering that the degenerative aspects of American popular culture came on the heels of the rise of black entertainment in the "mainstream."

Quote:

"Imitating" implies they are merely pretending, practicing bits of a culture but not embracing it fully. This is not the case in the examples I stated. If a Russian white person chooses to embrace Hip-Hop culture, he is a part of it, end of story.

No, it's not the "end of story." It isn't even the beginning of the story. What do Russians share in common with the culture of American urban blacks? They may like the beat, how it sounds, and they try to imitate it, but that's all it is. It's a style of music, which is a part of culture, but not a culture all by itself.

Quote:

The Chinese example is mixing up the predominating preferences of nations, not of true cultures per se. Really though, if a person eats Chinese style food, it is taking a part in an element of the tradition of the country of China.

Yes, an element, not the entire culture; not enough to say that there is cultural cross-over.

Quote:

Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors and others that share non-essential characteristics.

Who said anything about "judging" anybody? We're just talking about discernable differences in culture between Whites and blacks in America today. For some reason, you have difficulty accepting the fact that there are cultural differences along racial lines here in America. Granted, it's not 100%, and certainly, nobody is actually "judging" a culture or any of its individual members. It's just that it stands to reason that a person will most likely be a reflection of the culture into which he was born and raised. Of course, you made the point that people can make individual choices and reject all or part of their culture, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

In other words, if you came across a young man who was born and raised in a Muslim terrorist training camp, that doesn't automatically prove that such an individual has committed any wrongdoing, but then again, would you want to trust this man to work in a nuclear laboratory - or some other sensitive, national security type job? I can almost guarantee you that such an individual would not even get to square one on the security clearance, and rightfully so. Do you think that's irrational? Or would it be more irrational to give this guy a top security job, thinking that he's an individual and that he shouldn't be judged by his background and culture?

Quote:

Well this is all a matter of the preconceptions people have. Just because they all look the same, people tend to categorize them based on this. This is simply how the mind works normally; conceptually. A person identifies specific elements of things and categorizes, in order to distinguish between things. It is because of certain people’s concept of “other people” being incorrect in this case. These people link together non-essential characteristics like colour. A brown table is still a table. One's race is a secondary factor of a human being.

Racism is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

The point is, they have an identity and a link with each other based on those cultural elements which are unique to their culture but common to most of the members of that culture. They react to others based upon what they perceive their identity to be.

I didn't say that they were all alike. I never said that. But there are divisions among other races besides Whites and blacks. That was my main point. They themselves divide along racial lines as well. They don't really ask the deep questions or go into long polemics as to whether or not it's "rational" for them to do so. They just do it as a matter of course, just like it's the natural thing for them to do.

Quote:

Well both. Species is the group, the culture is an attribute of the group. Yes, there are sub-cultures, and sub-sub-cultures, and sub-sub-sub-cultures, right down to the smallest groupings. All the subcultures are applied to subgroupings, some of which have unique names, like “Japanese people”, some don’t; like “people who are postmen, who also like football”. Regions share common cultural characteristics yes, but they also have variation in the same region, and also a region may have cultural characteristics in common with another. A group is a wider term than a culture. A group has any item in common. A culture has a specific set of items (behaviour / lifestyle / ideas) in common. You have to remember that these things are chosen, and the group label is applied after. Culture doesn't define a person, just as race doesn't.

Only to a certain point. Sure, a person chooses whether to be a postman or whether he likes football, but I don't consider those to be cultural choices anyway. Football may be a part of our national culture, but just because someone chooses not to like football doesn't constitute a rejection of the national culture (although some football fanatics might disagree).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that "culture doesn't define a person." What, in your view, does define a person? Is it the individual's choice to define himself? If so, then how does he do that? What terms would he use, and where would those terms come from? Whose definitions would he use? What would be the language of his thought processes? Where would his understanding of the world around him come from? How would he know how to interact with other humans around him?

Don't be so quick to dismiss culture's role in defining people. It's become so second nature to many of us, that much of our culture barely escapes notice, but it's there nevertheless. It may be a "choice," but that comes much later in life. You are defined as a part of a group, a culture, and a race on the very day you are born. If, on your 18th birthday, you choose another culture or identity, then that’s your choice, but your formative culture will still be a part of you anyway. Only a rare sort of individual can turn it on and off at will like you’re suggesting. Most people don’t do that.

Quote:

Ah here's where I agree with you. I understand there are strange regulations (like "affirmative action") in the USA, which intend to "equalize races". I strongly oppose this as it is simply racism replaced with racism. I don't believe in reparations to the ancestors of black people, this is equally stupid. It's the same "group-responsibility" I have been against from the start. I also agree that clashing (conflicting) cultures is where problems arise.

Well, then maybe you can understand a little bit better as to why there are some of us who oppose those policies. Part of the problem is that the multiculturalists and anti-racists have gone too far, and this is one of the central justifications for the White Nationalist viewpoint. WN might seem too “extreme” for some people, but you have to look at who our opponents are and what they support. That puts it all into proper perspective.

Usually, I find that most antis come from a perspective of not having any real first-hand experience with what White people have to deal with in the USA. That’s why they don’t understand White Nationalism. Even if they’re White, they’re usually from some upper class, insular existence. Some come from countries and regions where they have little to no contact with non-whites. So, they think they know us without having walked in our shoes, but they really don’t know a damn thing.

Quote:

If you take the standard of morality as "man's life qua man" as I do, you can define which culture is in the wrong and which is in the right in any given scenario; from the obvious, like murder and rape, to the less obvious. The only area which I don't believe there is a definable "good" or "bad" is in the realm of aesthetics; i.e. there isn't strictly definable "good" music or "bad art". If a person enters your country, then breaks into your home and steals your possessions, then this is wrong (obviously), and the individual must be punished. If a group of black people enter your country, and half of them commit the same act, but half don't; then the HALF that did, should be punished accordingly. The other half deserve no ill treatment.

Sure, I would agree with that.

However, if half of the group commits a crime such as rape or murder, and the other half protect them and advocate on their behalf, then that’s another matter. The black leadership advocates on behalf of black criminals and openly shows sympathy for them. They’ve organized protests against law enforcement on behalf of black criminals. You should have seen the wild cheers and celebrations arising from the black community after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, when an all-black jury used the encouraged practice of “jury nullification” in order to exonerate him.

So, it’s not just a matter of pinpointing individuals who commit crimes. It’s also a matter of looking at the entire political culture within non-white communities which justifies and even encourages crime. Even going to prison isn’t really all that bad for them, since blacks are the “upper caste” in the prison system, and when they get out, they are treated as heroes within their own communities. So, that’s what we’re dealing with, not just random individuals committing random crimes. We’re dealing with an entire urban/ghetto sub-culture of crime.

Quote:

And thus, here I disagree. Give an example of "incompatible" culture, where both are "good" or "neutral" in your opinion.

I think that multiculturalism in America is the quintessential example of cultural incompatibility. Look at all that has had to be done in order to make various cultures “integrate” and then “get along” with each other. It took judicial fiats, presidential executive orders, federal troops (on several occasions), economic coercion, political blackmail, and outright violence. It took Affirmative Action (something you criticized earlier), Political Correctness, the active promotion of “diversity” in all sectors of society. Look at how desperate they still are to try to silence anyone who questions or criticizes their “holy word.”

If they have to go through all that in order to make different cultures compatible with each other, then something is terribly wrong with the central premise of their ideology.

Quote:

What's to lose by living amongst people with different interests and ideas? You live amongst White people who have different tastes, ideas and what-not.. why not Chinese or Blacks?

Well, when you put it that way, you make it sound all so innocent and harmless, when the reality is far less than the ideal.

If we were just talking about a few here and there, it wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve heard even moderates and liberals say that they enjoy diversity because it’s “flavorful,” but it’s a far different matter when an immigrant group starts to take over and reshape the community to conform to their culture which may be in conflict with American culture. This is happening in cities all across the country.

If these trends continue, then I daresay that there will be more of a reaction from White people. It’s one thing to support “diversity” in the abstract sense, but when the reality starts to hit home, then we may see Whites react quite differently. People say that White Nationalists are anachronisms, but that’s not entirely true, since we’re facing a situation which is absolutely unprecedented in world history.

Quote:

On a side not, not entirely relevant, but if you kicked out all other races from your society, what makes you think this will not anger those other races (such as the Chinese) and thereby make them stop all trade with you, or worse? I asked my Chinese friends about it, and they think China would stop all it's trade and cooperation if such an act was commited by a nation. Since Chine (not to mention Japan, Taiwan etc.) are a huge player in world economics, and this is a growing factor, then there would be severe problems if trade ended with them. You'd be sacrificing a lot.

Well, for one thing, I don’t know that they would be “kicked out.” Separation could come in many possible forms, not automatic deportations.

However, let’s suppose that the Chinese were kicked out of America. Why would the Chinese government, which is 10,000 miles away, truly care? Surely, you’re not accusing them of being “racists,” as they should care no more about Chinese people being kicked out than Mexicans, Africans, Arabs, or anyone else? Since the Chinese people in question would be citizens or permanent residents of America, then there would be no “rational” reason for them to react in any way at all, would there?

On the other hand, China needs to trade with the USA more than the USA needs to trade with China, so they’d be sacrificing far more just for the sake of a principle which doesn’t affect them one iota.

Furthermore, if the Chinese government did react with hostility if ethnic Chinese were deported from the USA, then that would pretty much prove that they’ve been a threat all along, thus justifying such a deportation.

Quote:

Yes true, but all of these things are not intrinsically part of "American Culture". These are currently a part of it due to whatever influences, but the negative things can turned around without it stopping being "American Culture". A culture may not be entirely good or bad sure, but the specific parts are, and if these specific parts conflict with the equivocal parts of another culture, one of them is wrong.

Well, I would say that elements of human nature also become part of the culture, whether they are positive or negative. In fact, defining something as positive or negative is also a cultural value.

Quote:

I don't want to double the size of future posts by going into politics, but authoritarianism is a bad way to deal with anything. Go back to Capitalist Paradise if you want to talk more about that; I debated for 37 pages over such matters.

We’ve talked about it quite extensively here as well. However, my only point was that through most of human history, the only way to curb certain human instinctive behaviors was through a form of social conditioning commonly referred to as “authoritarianism.” Essentially, that’s the only possible method of governing human behavior and maintaining order in society. If push comes to shove, authoritarian principles are often invoked even in so-called “free” societies; they have to be, in order to keep society together.

Quote:

Indeed, the world is nowhere near this stage yet. A common set of principles, principles based on individual rights, would solve all cultural conflict problems. Bad things would be punished, good things would be rewarded. If people continued to do bad things, they would continue to be punished. Now, these "bad things" aren't just based on my, your, or anyone's opinion; they are based on an objective code as defined by the philosophy of Objectivism. People would be free to hold any beliefs, but if they act upon them, and they infringe one someone else's individual rights, they would be punished by the legal system.

Yes, but as you said, the world is nowhere near this stage yet. The legal system is a form of authoritarianism, too, and there is no reliable mechanism yet devised to ensure that those who hold stewardship over whatever system of “punishment” is in place would not abuse such authority. This is the problem faced by every ideal “system” that human beings try to think up.

One thing about nationalism which I think is superior to objectivism, capitalism, communism, or secular humanism: Nationalists take into consideration human nature, particular the faults and imperfections of human nature. All others tend to regard the “system” as imperfect, while giving little to no attention to the actual people who comprise a given system.

Do you seriously believe that a common set of abstract principles is all that it would take? Why should anyone have loyalty to those principles? Why should anyone obey them? People might follow certain principles for the collective good of society, but if the role of the collective is minimized and devalued, then there will be nothing to hold it together. Nobody would have any real reason to obey this common set of principles or even cooperate with their neighbors, since they would exercise their own rights as individuals over their responsibilities to the collective whole. The next step would be anarchy, chaos, and complete societal collapse.

Quote:

I don't think the government should have this kind of regulation, it should stand against those which are destructive, end of story. It should have no say over the personal lifestyles of individuals, whether they be classical music, or African dancing.

Well, I don’t think that they necessarily dictate any personal lifestyles, but they have put forth destructive regulations nevertheless. Maybe you don’t think that government should have this kind of regulation, but they do, so that’s that.

Quote:

It still is only the destructive cultures which damage society. Government intervention in the matter of things like "making up for the past transgressions against blacks" is just ridiculous, like giving preferential treatment to blacks for things.

Yes, it is ridiculous, isn’t it? Now, you’re finally starting to get it.

Quote:

There is far too much group-think and group-labelling and collectivism. A person should be judged by their individual virtues.

Well, as you said before, humans are social animals. Do you honestly believe that you can change that characteristic of our species?

Quote:

Anti-racist policies are a contradiction. Coercion is not going to solve anything, but neither is white nationalism. If people start judging people as individuals rather than groups, then things will get better. If the government does the same, things will get better. It is collectivism and irrationality in all it's forms which is the root of conflict in society.

I don’t think we have time to wait for the rest of the world to become “rational.” I view White Nationalism as a stop-gap, a defensive measure to protect ourselves, our society, and our culture. I view White Nationalism as being the next reaction to anti-racism, which is actually far more anachronistic, since that ideology has been purely reactive to policies which have long since been eradicated. Now, they can’t think of anything better to do, which is why we end up with Affirmative Action, Political Correctness, and multiculturalism. That’s really what it’s all about. White Nationalism is the only way to challenge the malignant ideals of multiculturalism.

Quote:

Well it racial seperation wouldn't be a wise thing to do, because it would likely just create cross-national violence and create even bigger problems.

Actually, we’ve had more violence and bigger problems since the “separate but equal” doctrine has been overturned. Prior to that, America was doing great. We were a superpower unmatched by any other nation in the world. Then, our leadership decided to piss it all away.

Quote:

White nationalism is a very small group relatively speaking. Maybe a million or two at a guess, scattered across the world. I know in general all you want is peace, but WN is not going to accomplish it because 1.) It won't unite all the moral people, 2.) It won't remove all the immoral people and 3.) It will just magnify the effects of tribalism. Mutual fear, suspicion, and hatred. Such discrimination will likely enrage the other races and cause a full-on conflict between whites and the rest, even though it's genetically impossible to discern who belongs where.

Well, if it enrages other races, then that would be proof positive of their malignant intentions towards White people.

Essentially, all White Nationalism is saying is that non-whites should live on their own and take care of themselves. They should sink or swim on their own. Anyone who opposes that idea must obviously believe that non-whites can’t take care of themselves. Either that, or they believe that Whites owe them a living. So, if anyone becomes violent over that, then they would only be revealing their true colors, and they would be the ones who are immoral and wrong. Their violence would be an act of armed robbery against the White race, and that would be wrong.

All we want is to be left alone, and they won’t leave us alone. We have the right to defend our right to be left alone in peace. If they choose to violate that right, then what will be, will be. Let the Earth crumble and the Heavens fall, if that’s what it comes to. But in the end, whatever violence occurs would only be because they refused to leave us alone when they could have easily chosen to do so without great inconvenience or threat to themselves, their nation, culture, or people.

But if they want to make a big deal out of it; if they want to get in our faces with their “multicultural rights,” then they shouldn’t be surprised if some crap gets thrown back their way.

Quote:

If cultures die out of their own accord then that's fine, but I don't agree with the forced destruction of things, if that's what the government is doing. In this case it's the government, not the introduction of different cultures, which is causing cultural erosion.

The government is also responsible for introducing different cultures.

Quote:

If they have such individual virtues then they deserve to be respected for it. To be patriotic is fine, to love one's country because of it's virtues, but to love one's country no matter what is purely irrational. America may have had many different cultural characteristics in the past which have died out, like the use of the horse and cart, various clothing fashions etc. and culture will continue to change. If you personally want to retain parts of the culture, then you should be free to do so! However, I don't agree in force-retaining the culture for everyone.. just as I don't agree with force-marganilizing it (unless it's bad.. as discussed).

I think that we should remember our history. We don’t have to relive it, but we should take time to consider and reflect upon where we came from. This is especially true if we value the ideals and principles of America’s Founding Fathers and the European philosophers who inspired them. All of these ideas of individualism and liberty came out of those traditions, and it took centuries to hone and fine tune those ideals into something that many people take for granted nowadays. That’s why I like nationalism; nationalists don’t take things for granted.

Take, for example, your view regarding a common set of principles that everyone should agree upon and freedom for the individual is the utmost goal of society. How do you think that’s going to come about? Are people simply going to agree with it because it’s such a great idea?

It’s easy to create ideals in the air when you’re at the top of an ivory tower, but every so often, you might want to look down to see how far up you are. It’s a long way to fall.

All peoples are inherently tribal. Do this social experiment. I am certain many of you have already subconsciously if not consciously. The next time you are in a group of racially mixed individuals watch closely as time passes. The Persians will gather with the Persians. The Hispanics will gather with the Hispanics. The Blacks will gather with the Blacks. The Whites will gather with the Whites. It is natural, natural law if you will. The social structure we exist in is unnatural. It forces peoples of different tribes to coexist. The result is a social stratification that is rife with chaos. The chaos is caused by the collision between the artificially leveled playing field and the nascent capabilities of the tribes in that artificial society. What we see are pockets of increased racial concentration. Whites and Asians tend to fair better, while blacks, native Americans and Hispanics, for instance, do not fair as well as the previously mentioned groups. This forces the managers of the artificial society to attempt to impose further "leveling" to the playing field such as affirmative action and head start programs, increasing National Research budgets to include more minority grants.. and so on. The white population regrets what the establishment whites continue to practice and the Blacks and Hispanics are never fully integrated because the playing field can not be leveled without further animus on the side of the whites for loss of their opportunity and on the side of the Blacks and Hispanics for perceived inadequate opportunity presented to them. The construct of the multicultural society was an inevitable experiment that was forced to happen due to an increased population and ever increasing Globalized economy. Unfortunately, as Darwin realized(is someone going to try to tell me he was a Jew?) a species, or for that matter, a race, will evolve according to the selective presures of its environment. Ancestrally, all races have not been subjected to identical pressures. Hence, the White, Asian, and Negroid races, and all the tribal permutations of them, will not have the same adaptive capacity to survive in a civilized, industrialized, consumer driven economy based society such as ours. That is the simple logic of the situation.

Could Miscogenisation not be considered a form of Genocide. or Coercion towards suicide...my reason being that if you breed a people out they are just as extinct...and their culture dies from lack of appreciation and growth that the extinct people would have given it. a better example than whites would be the Native folk of the America's who constitute several million and would quickly be swept from existance if they chose dysgenics at a synonimous rate as whites.

World War II? Europeans in North America began importing non-whites to the continent in the 17th century. North America has always been multicultural. The very first English colony, Jamestown saw original white colonist John Rolfe marry a non-white woman in the year 1614.

2508

Yes it did have Multiple cultures,but America was not always "Multicultural" in the aspect that Multiculturalism is today,for you to even try and suggest that,is beyond me,America during the early years allowed the Black to develop it's own culture,whether or not you wish to agree with it,it is a fact.

We had already established earlier,that what is known as multiculturalism today,can be better described as Cultural relativism,due to self inflicting hatred from the dominant culture,America never loathed it's culture during the 17th century,So I see no relevance to this matter.

America was a Segregationist nation,It segregated colored cultures from white cultures,the same can be said for South Africa who had 11 Tribes with different cultures (By 18th century) and the Whites,never the less you had the whites,and then you had the segregated blacks,given a piece of land to self govern and the right to determine the way their culture progress' the key point historians neglect to mention is,that they turned it into a large rubbish bin and started moving into white national borders.

Today there is just one culture in South Africa,that is "Black Culture",the only problem in this instance is that the Majority blacks do not care to preserve the culture of either tribe,conflict occurs,specifically between the Xhoza and the Zulu.

A Minority white regime,did a better job in securing the determination of each culture than the black does today.

Conclusion,"pol pot" society does not work,even in a Majority black nation that host's a variety in cultures within a common race.

Oh, I explained enough what I mean. Translation for dummies: what you think should happen is irrelevant. We see from real-world examples what does happen and where multicult is leading. It happens by it's own dynamics and not by pipe dreams of multicultists who say us what shouldn't happen. So your kind permission to us to do something or not do something is irrelevant. In multicult society we pretty much can be stopped from doing anything.

Well if what I think should happen is irrelevant, then what you think should happen is irrelevant, and we have no point in being here. Cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poison

I don't know what's "wrong" with that, because I don't operate with such categories as "wrong". I know I don't want to speak Chinese. OK?

Chinese is a very beautiful language so you're missing out. Again though, as you said; "what you think should happen is irrelevant".

Quote:

I was referring to your great idea that if part of Chinese nation would move somewhere, it somehow would not impair host population.

Impair it how? If the government didn't enforce it, and prevented initiation of force, how could it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poison

I know I like English (liked it from pre-school naturally). There's a difference from learning English (nice language of fellow Indo-Europeans, all such languages are somewhat similar and relatively easy to learn) just for leisure and being forced to learn absolutely alien Chinese. If you want to live in Chinese country and speak Chinese - there's a nice possibility for you today to do so: go to China. I don't want to live in Chinese society and speak Chinese, and that's definitely would happen if there's a Chinese majority in a country.

Why would that happen if there was a "Chinese" majority. Chinese people who come to America learn English. English is the language of the American nation. If people want to move and live there, they have to learn English. Are some of American schools' language lessons teaching Afrikaan as compulsary? No. It doesn't matter how much of a majority they become, they all have and will end up learning and speaking English.

Quote:

What you preach here is naive liberalism, a liberal utopia where if somebody desires, he can "freely" do anything. It's already flawed because even today's liberalism has it's limits. But another very important thing is preservation of liberalism is not guaranteed in the first place. Black majority in Africa instantly created bloody Black dictatorships. Chinese majority in China created also totalitarian system. Islamists - well, no comments. As White majority disappears, why the Hell it's assumed somebody else will maintain the same system? I doubt that any other majority is going to care about White minority as White bleeding hearts cared about non-white minorities. Even if democracy will be preserved, democracy itself has potential for turning into majority dictate. Chinese majority for example can dictate White minority whatever it wants.

What are you babbling on about? I don't promote liberalism. I don't promote democracy. The system I advocate wouldn't even recognize majorities and minorities, only people as individuals. No individual or group would have more power than anybody else. A "Chinese" majority didn't create a totalitarian system; the ideology of Marxism held by it's leaders did.

Globally, population wise; White's ARE a minority.. does this stop them living as they choose? If they become more of a minority, it still wouldn't. Since I don't promote governmental egalitarianist policies then don't suggest the consequences would be the same as if I did. Most of the objections you have are not against the foreigners themselves, but against your government for catering for their demands.

English is the language of the American nation. If people want to move and live there, they have to learn English. Are some of American schools' language lessons teaching Afrikaan as compulsary? No.

Sigh. Funny that one like you would mention "nation", but overall this and surrounding crap is too bold for me. You're caught on BSing (there's no guarantee the all Mexicans and other illegals who get into USA 1) even speak English well. 2) will continue speaking English willingly if they're majority. And indeed examples show they don't. The people who "move there" (in USA that is) are not currently obligated and don't depend on you to tell them what they have to do. It's they who tell (shout) what must be done for them - schools in Mexican, medical care, voting rights, driving licenses, and there're no reasons to expect this to change.

I've warned you to not burden us with your irrelevant pipe dreams of shoulds and woulds and instead stick to ways how things happen in recent history and in real countries. Obviously you refuse and continue to spit out bold BS about things that simply are not there. I have little tolerance for such stupidity, thus the conversation with you ends.

I might just reply to you from now on, since the other people seem to just repeat things you have covered, and because it takes so long replying to everyone and it's not worth it if all my replies end up saying the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

No, but we're talking about White American culture, so in this case, all White Americans are American.

Not every "American" shares a common language. In fact, a good many "Americans" are saying that we should not have a common language in America, because (according to them), such a thing would be "racist." So, keep in mind that multiculturalism includes multilingualism, so your point about common language is invalid, since a common language is in conflict with the ideology of multiculturalism.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, immigrants don't have the same respect for our laws and Constitutional principles. A lot of them speak of abrogating the First Amendment, because they don't even understand it or the principles behind it. People from Asia or Africa have no problem with that, because they've been living under authoritarianism for centuries. That's why I mentioned the fact that cultural loyalty is important, and they have none. They have no heritage of freedom, and as a result, they can't be trusted as stewards of freedom here in this country.

Yes, all white Americans are American, since that is implied. Okay some "Americans" might not speak English as well as others, but all Americans share a national primary language is what I mean. Road signs, newspapers, the primary compulsary language in schools; is English.

Understanding or respect for your legal system is not of great importance. As long as they abide by the law and don't inflict on people's freedoms then it's okay. If they break the law, then obviously they should simply be punished. It is their loss if they continue to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

American culture is a White culture. It can't possibly be anything else. It's not an Asian culture, nor is it an African culture, and it has very little in common with the tribal cultures of pre-colonial America. It can't possibly be anything besides a White culture. Non-whites may have imitated and adopted this culture, but it's still a White culture nevertheless.

It's not a "white culture", that's just how most people perceive it. What does that even mean? That only whites can follow it? That it was invented by whites? That only whites have the "capacity" to follow it? All these are null points. Anyone can follow it if they are allowed their invididual rights. Who it was invented by does not coincide with who can adopt it. Innovators of particular parts of the culture may have been German or Russian, that doesn't mean other nationalities can't adopt it. You have no more of a claim to "white culture" as a black person as neither of you actively contributed to it as individuals. The question about capacity to follow it can be invalidated by showing non-whites who do follow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, I guess you learn something new every day. I don't know why those with such a rich and varied culture as the Russians would want to embrace the absolute dregs of one America's sub-cultures. They used to complain about how decadent and degenerative American culture was, but somehow, black culture was never included in that. It's rather ironic, considering that the degenerative aspects of American popular culture came on the heels of the rise of black entertainment in the "mainstream."

The same as asking why would so many countries enjoy playing soccer, which arose in England. Because.. they enjoy it! Hip-Hop is hardly degenerative. One can make Hip-Hop music without cursing and degrading women. One can do graffiti art without vandalising property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

No, it's not the "end of story." It isn't even the beginning of the story. What do Russians share in common with the culture of American urban blacks? They may like the beat, how it sounds, and they try to imitate it, but that's all it is. It's a style of music, which is a part of culture, but not a culture all by itself.

Hip-Hop culture is defined simply by rap music, breakdancing, graffiti art and DJing, not what race takes part in it. The urban black people may have been the innovators, but that is not a relevant factor.

If practicing a culture doesn't make you part of it... what does? Nothing possibly can if not this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Who said anything about "judging" anybody? We're just talking about discernable differences in culture between Whites and blacks in America today. For some reason, you have difficulty accepting the fact that there are cultural differences along racial lines here in America. Granted, it's not 100%, and certainly, nobody is actually "judging" a culture or any of its individual members. It's just that it stands to reason that a person will most likely be a reflection of the culture into which he was born and raised. Of course, you made the point that people can make individual choices and reject all or part of their culture, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

There are cultural differences between all lines. The north U.S and south U.S are rather different culturally. Rural and urban populations are different. Urban and suburban populations are different. You suggest the culture of blacks (whether American or African) are somehow MORE different to eachother than the rest, which really isn't the case. If it is, please give me an example of where they differ. Averages won't do I'm afraid, I'd like you to show me specifically where these differences lie, and proof to show it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

In other words, if you came across a young man who was born and raised in a Muslim terrorist training camp, that doesn't automatically prove that such an individual has committed any wrongdoing, but then again, would you want to trust this man to work in a nuclear laboratory - or some other sensitive, national security type job? I can almost guarantee you that such an individual would not even get to square one on the security clearance, and rightfully so. Do you think that's irrational? Or would it be more irrational to give this guy a top security job, thinking that he's an individual and that he shouldn't be judged by his background and culture?

You're right, there is reason here to suspect him. Not due to averages and such, but due to his individual affiliation with terrorists. He's judged on his individual characteristics and background. Simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

The point is, they have an identity and a link with each other based on those cultural elements which are unique to their culture but common to most of the members of that culture. They react to others based upon what they perceive their identity to be.

I didn't say that they were all alike. I never said that. But there are divisions among other races besides Whites and blacks. That was my main point. They themselves divide along racial lines as well. They don't really ask the deep questions or go into long polemics as to whether or not it's "rational" for them to do so. They just do it as a matter of course, just like it's the natural thing for them to do.

If all whites are so "alike".. why do you get such a broad range? Murderers and scientists, priests and wife-beaters, jugglers and jehovas witnesses, trailer trash and businessmen. Are whites REALLY all so similar?

I agree, people do tend to be sheep and not ask questions, but usually there isn't a particularly huge need to question. Some cases deserve questioning, but they still don't and this is often due to the lies they are given since birth or because they are threatened by force. The Chinese are indoctrinated to support the Communist parties ideology and if they question, there would be serious consequences. There, people don't really have a choice. However, if one isn't forced to hold evil ideas, then it is their own fault for following them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Only to a certain point. Sure, a person chooses whether to be a postman or whether he likes football, but I don't consider those to be cultural choices anyway. Football may be a part of our national culture, but just because someone chooses not to like football doesn't constitute a rejection of the national culture (although some football fanatics might disagree).

It's a sub-culture, and if someone rejects it, they aren't part of that sub-culture. National cultures spawn sub-cultures which are part of the national culture, but it is not necessary for people to be part of the sub-culture to be part of the national culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that "culture doesn't define a person." What, in your view, does define a person? Is it the individual's choice to define himself? If so, then how does he do that? What terms would he use, and where would those terms come from? Whose definitions would he use? What would be the language of his thought processes? Where would his understanding of the world around him come from? How would he know how to interact with other humans around him?

Okay, a culture is a set of behaviour or ideas shared by a group. When a person is born, they have no cultural attatchments, they have no ideas, no knowledge and are free from influence. Interacting with society will cause the child to begin to understand how the society works, and start to accept ideas. A childs capacity for being critical is obviously undeveloped so they might end up following wrong ideas. The individual will take in behavioural norms from other individuals, but once old enough (varies), he/she has the power to accept or reject things. If he/she doesn't like the traditions of a society then he/she can reject them. All cultural association is a choice in the end, it isn't like being injected with a syringe full of ideas and behaviour which one follows like a robot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Don't be so quick to dismiss culture's role in defining people. It's become so second nature to many of us, that much of our culture barely escapes notice, but it's there nevertheless. It may be a "choice," but that comes much later in life. You are defined as a part of a group, a culture, and a race on the very day you are born. If, on your 18th birthday, you choose another culture or identity, then that’s your choice, but your formative culture will still be a part of you anyway. Only a rare sort of individual can turn it on and off at will like you’re suggesting. Most people don’t do that.

Culture exists, but it is the individuals choice to what extent he goes along with whichever parts of it. There is no standard which a culture has. All people have very different ways of operating. One family may eat together at a table, another may eat seperately. One person might like being outside playing sports, another might like sitting inside reading. There is a great deal of variation within nations and within societies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, then maybe you can understand a little bit better as to why there are some of us who oppose those policies. Part of the problem is that the multiculturalists and anti-racists have gone too far, and this is one of the central justifications for the White Nationalist viewpoint. WN might seem too “extreme” for some people, but you have to look at who our opponents are and what they support. That puts it all into proper perspective.

Usually, I find that most antis come from a perspective of not having any real first-hand experience with what White people have to deal with in the USA. That’s why they don’t understand White Nationalism. Even if they’re White, they’re usually from some upper class, insular existence. Some come from countries and regions where they have little to no contact with non-whites. So, they think they know us without having walked in our shoes, but they really don’t know a damn thing.

It's not the multiculturalists or anti-racists in general who have gone to far, it is the government. Their ideas are wrong and it is they who are causing most of the issues you speak of.

Coming from Russia, I know what you're talking about. To get this "multiculturalism" that you speak of replace "whites" with "bourgeoisie" and "non-whites" with "prolateriat" and you have Communism. Communism seeked to equalize them all as if they were discernable groups, where one group oppressed the other.

Take racism on the other hand, it is just as bad. It is targetting a group as if they have a collective responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Sure, I would agree with that.

However, if half of the group commits a crime such as rape or murder, and the other half protect them and advocate on their behalf, then that’s another matter. The black leadership advocates on behalf of black criminals and openly shows sympathy for them. They’ve organized protests against law enforcement on behalf of black criminals. You should have seen the wild cheers and celebrations arising from the black community after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, when an all-black jury used the encouraged practice of “jury nullification” in order to exonerate him.

So, it’s not just a matter of pinpointing individuals who commit crimes. It’s also a matter of looking at the entire political culture within non-white communities which justifies and even encourages crime. Even going to prison isn’t really all that bad for them, since blacks are the “upper caste” in the prison system, and when they get out, they are treated as heroes within their own communities. So, that’s what we’re dealing with, not just random individuals committing random crimes. We’re dealing with an entire urban/ghetto sub-culture of crime.

Yes, a sub-culture. It's a collection of individuals still. Reasons for their criminality are the individual choices they make. You could say there is a sub-culture of crime amongst businessmen. Most of them may be white, but that doesn't mean its a problem with whites. The holocaust doesn't suggest a problem with whites. If you are identifying groups of criminals, fine. It still doesn't justify seperation of "race cultures", just the punishment of those individuals.

If those black people unite in the way you stated above it is again their bad ideas of power as a group combined with their immoral actions. They identify with eachother based on racial lineage (well, skin colour really), and this is irrational. They may also identify "whites" as all being against them, which is equally irrational, and may be a cause of their behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

I think that multiculturalism in America is the quintessential example of cultural incompatibility. Look at all that has had to be done in order to make various cultures “integrate” and then “get along” with each other. It took judicial fiats, presidential executive orders, federal troops (on several occasions), economic coercion, political blackmail, and outright violence. It took Affirmative Action (something you criticized earlier), Political Correctness, the active promotion of “diversity” in all sectors of society. Look at how desperate they still are to try to silence anyone who questions or criticizes their “holy word.”

If they have to go through all that in order to make different cultures compatible with each other, then something is terribly wrong with the central premise of their ideology.

All of these things that "have" to be done, don't actually "have" to be done. These are all things carried out by the government who deem these actions as necessary when they aren't, and are causing resentment amongst people like yourself.

You haven't pointed out examples of incompatible cultural characteristics, and most aren't incompatible anyway. Cultures conflict where they oppose. An atheist culture would oppose a muslim culture. A typical Japanese person would not have any conflicting cultural characteristics with a typical American person. Language wouldn't cause conflict, only communication difficulties. A typical black African might be used to a more primitive lifestyle, but how would this cause conflict? It would only cause conflict if he/she started to practice cannibalism or something, which is unlikely.

The racial conflict seen in America is not a case of African culture vs. American culture.. it is totally American culture in itself. American society has created these myths about huge differences between the races. American society is where racism was perpetuated on such levels as to create the tension that it has. Individuals of both white and non-white descent have internalized the conflicts and events of the distant past on a personal level which is plain wrong. American society is what has brought up the past, and it is the American government who have turned these ideas into legislation, causing yet more conflict. If a white village was established in say, Gambia, I heavily doubt they would be met with hatred from the natives, more likely; curiosity and excitement (as described to me by one of my former teachers who indeed did this). If an effort was made by the whites to live peacefully alongside the blacks, there wouldn't be a problem. There would be no reason for conflict if there were no stupid ideas raised about genetic incompatibility or reparations for the distant past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, when you put it that way, you make it sound all so innocent and harmless, when the reality is far less than the ideal.

If we were just talking about a few here and there, it wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve heard even moderates and liberals say that they enjoy diversity because it’s “flavorful,” but it’s a far different matter when an immigrant group starts to take over and reshape the community to conform to their culture which may be in conflict with American culture. This is happening in cities all across the country.

If these trends continue, then I daresay that there will be more of a reaction from White people. It’s one thing to support “diversity” in the abstract sense, but when the reality starts to hit home, then we may see Whites react quite differently. People say that White Nationalists are anachronisms, but that’s not entirely true, since we’re facing a situation which is absolutely unprecedented in world history.

Can you be more specific? Can you show how mere diversity causes problems? What particular differences do you think cause problems? Are they things which are not already opposed? An influx of murderers would cause problems sure, but not an influx of peaceful Chinese farmers or businessmen. Unless of course the natives have wrong ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, for one thing, I don’t know that they would be “kicked out.” Separation could come in many possible forms, not automatic deportations.

However, let’s suppose that the Chinese were kicked out of America. Why would the Chinese government, which is 10,000 miles away, truly care? Surely, you’re not accusing them of being “racists,” as they should care no more about Chinese people being kicked out than Mexicans, Africans, Arabs, or anyone else? Since the Chinese people in question would be citizens or permanent residents of America, then there would be no “rational” reason for them to react in any way at all, would there?

On the other hand, China needs to trade with the USA more than the USA needs to trade with China, so they’d be sacrificing far more just for the sake of a principle which doesn’t affect them one iota.

Furthermore, if the Chinese government did react with hostility if ethnic Chinese were deported from the USA, then that would pretty much prove that they’ve been a threat all along, thus justifying such a deportation.

The actions of the Chinese would be in retaliation, not because of their own racism. If the Chinese were immigrants from China, then they'd presumably return to China. Since there are a lot of them, it would be a concern for the Chinese government. Then think about all the other non-whites.

If the Chinese you kick out were American in all ways but their appearance, due to being born in America, you have no justificaton to seperate them. In terms of their character, they are just as "white" as you.

If all you want is seperation, why don't all of you collectively buy an island somewhere? There are plenty of uninhabited islands across the globe, I'm sure one would be suitable. You simply don't have the right to remove non-whites from land which isn't yours, you only have that right over your own private property that you legally own. I suppose you could find an area with few non-whites and buy the land off them. If you're really that strong in your beliefs, surely this should have happened already!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, I would say that elements of human nature also become part of the culture, whether they are positive or negative. In fact, defining something as positive or negative is also a cultural value.

Human nature (as in inborn knowledge) is a myth. Humans are born tabula rasa. I spent a long time arguing that human nature exists, but only to be proven wrong. Not really terribly important here though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

We’ve talked about it quite extensively here as well. However, my only point was that through most of human history, the only way to curb certain human instinctive behaviors was through a form of social conditioning commonly referred to as “authoritarianism.” Essentially, that’s the only possible method of governing human behavior and maintaining order in society. If push comes to shove, authoritarian principles are often invoked even in so-called “free” societies; they have to be, in order to keep society together.

Well no truly "free" societies exist. The authoritarianism I refer to is government regulation. Legal binding which restricts peoples freedoms, or at least try to. The law should defend freedom and rights, not infringe upon them. Negative and positive rights are incompatible. Authoritarian policies is what causes the things you (and I) detest so much such as affirmative action. Defending people's rights is not authoritarian. Rights are derived from the nature of human beings. Don't want to explain further as it's a totally different subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Yes, but as you said, the world is nowhere near this stage yet. The legal system is a form of authoritarianism, too, and there is no reliable mechanism yet devised to ensure that those who hold stewardship over whatever system of “punishment” is in place would not abuse such authority. This is the problem faced by every ideal “system” that human beings try to think up.

One thing about nationalism which I think is superior to objectivism, capitalism, communism, or secular humanism: Nationalists take into consideration human nature, particular the faults and imperfections of human nature. All others tend to regard the “system” as imperfect, while giving little to no attention to the actual people who comprise a given system.

Do you seriously believe that a common set of abstract principles is all that it would take? Why should anyone have loyalty to those principles? Why should anyone obey them? People might follow certain principles for the collective good of society, but if the role of the collective is minimized and devalued, then there will be nothing to hold it together. Nobody would have any real reason to obey this common set of principles or even cooperate with their neighbors, since they would exercise their own rights as individuals over their responsibilities to the collective whole. The next step would be anarchy, chaos, and complete societal collapse.

Again, human nature doesn't exist. As for "do you seriously believe that a common set of abstract principles is all that it would take?"... Well let's see... how many religious people are there out there? How many mystics and astrologers? These are all abstract principles. Unlike these mystic, unnatural principles, the principles I advocate are based purely in reality, so they should be far easier to understand.

People don't need "common goals" or "collective consciousness". Since cooperation and non-violence is in everybody's best interests, most people would continue to obey the law. No-one has a "responsibility to the collective whole", only a responsibility to respect the rights of others and to one's self. Again this is all political, we haven't finished with the actual issue of multiculturalism yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, I don’t think that they necessarily dictate any personal lifestyles, but they have put forth destructive regulations nevertheless. Maybe you don’t think that government should have this kind of regulation, but they do, so that’s that.

Yeah, and we don't disagree here so let's leave it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Yes, it is ridiculous, isn’t it? Now, you’re finally starting to get it.

Indeed. Not "finally" though, because I never suggested I agreed with these regulations in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, as you said before, humans are social animals. Do you honestly believe that you can change that characteristic of our species?

It's not a pre-birth mental state that we are social animals, we are social in that we rely on others to make life better for ourselves. We can't do very much alone. The group-think I was referring to is the divisions we create amongst ourselves which are not necessary, or the false ideas about group responsibility and behaviour. There is only individual responsibility. If two people commit a crime they are both seperately responsible for what they did. Obviously.. and apparently you agree based on something you said earlier. If you really do agree, you can't say you support the removal of "non-whites", even those who are free from blame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

I don’t think we have time to wait for the rest of the world to become “rational.” I view White Nationalism as a stop-gap, a defensive measure to protect ourselves, our society, and our culture. I view White Nationalism as being the next reaction to anti-racism, which is actually far more anachronistic, since that ideology has been purely reactive to policies which have long since been eradicated. Now, they can’t think of anything better to do, which is why we end up with Affirmative Action, Political Correctness, and multiculturalism. That’s really what it’s all about. White Nationalism is the only way to challenge the malignant ideals of multiculturalism.

Again, you're against the government's stance on the matter. By excluding all non-whites you are violating the rights of many blameless individuals based on a mere generalization. You have no right to move them from their own property, but you are free to move somewhere, as I stated previously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Actually, we’ve had more violence and bigger problems since the “separate but equal” doctrine has been overturned. Prior to that, America was doing great. We were a superpower unmatched by any other nation in the world. Then, our leadership decided to piss it all away.

Again, leadership issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Well, if it enrages other races, then that would be proof positive of their malignant intentions towards White people.

Again, it would be in retaliation. It would be a gruesome violation of individual rights, and all people who value individual rights would be enraged, not just the races concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Essentially, all White Nationalism is saying is that non-whites should live on their own and take care of themselves. They should sink or swim on their own. Anyone who opposes that idea must obviously believe that non-whites can’t take care of themselves. Either that, or they believe that Whites owe them a living. So, if anyone becomes violent over that, then they would only be revealing their true colors, and they would be the ones who are immoral and wrong. Their violence would be an act of armed robbery against the White race, and that would be wrong.

I believe all individuals should take care of themselves... anyone who opposes that idea obviously believes that nobody can take care of themselves. What distance there is between them is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

All we want is to be left alone, and they won’t leave us alone. We have the right to defend our right to be left alone in peace. If they choose to violate that right, then what will be, will be. Let the Earth crumble and the Heavens fall, if that’s what it comes to. But in the end, whatever violence occurs would only be because they refused to leave us alone when they could have easily chosen to do so without great inconvenience or threat to themselves, their nation, culture, or people.

You want to be left alone, but you want to live collectively with all the white's who commit the same crimes and wrongs? This doesn't make sense. To be left alone is your right, sure, but you want them to be physically moved away from you, an act which you have no right to do. It's up to you to find somewhere to be alone, you can't force them away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

But if they want to make a big deal out of it; if they want to get in our faces with their “multicultural rights,” then they shouldn’t be surprised if some crap gets thrown back their way.

They have every right to get in your faces if they're being forced out of their homes for no valid reason. I don't care about their rights as a culture as I don't agree with "group" rights of this kind; but they have the right as an individual to live wherever they choose if they do so without using force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

The government is also responsible for introducing different cultures.

Are they forcibly making people immigrate to the U.S? Their forcing of "equalization" etc. is plain wrong, so in that respect you have my full support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

Take, for example, your view regarding a common set of principles that everyone should agree upon and freedom for the individual is the utmost goal of society. How do you think that’s going to come about? Are people simply going to agree with it because it’s such a great idea?

These are ideas that America was founded upon, but America does not currently operate based on them. The ideas are based on individual freedom, not group freedom outside of "everyone". Few agree fully with these principles because centuries of integration of altruist, mystical, irrational and collectivist principles. Few people even have access to the knowledge which would make them see their errors. Few people thoroughly question things. It's not a question of "waiting for everyone to be come rational" like you say, but a question of shifting the ideas of the intellectuals, and of the politicians. The ideas of "the masses" will change accordingly once they are exposed to truth, freedom, and the nature of reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDY6401

It’s easy to create ideals in the air when you’re at the top of an ivory tower, but every so often, you might want to look down to see how far up you are. It’s a long way to fall.

The changing of government policy and people's attitudes will be a far easier task than getting all the non-whites to move away for no reason, since this would involve both changing policy and attidues rather more radically, plus the great practical problems it would cause. The option of buying your own little island still remains.

Sigh. Funny that one like you would mention "nation", but overall this and surrounding crap is too bold for me. You're caught on BSing (there's no guarantee the all Mexicans and other illegals who get into USA 1) even speak English well. 2) will continue speaking English willingly if they're majority. And indeed examples show they don't. The people who "move there" (in USA that is) are not currently obligated and don't depend on you to tell them what they have to do. It's they who tell (shout) what must be done for them - schools in Mexican, medical care, voting rights, driving licenses, and there're no reasons to expect this to change.

I've warned you to not burden us with your irrelevant pipe dreams of shoulds and woulds and instead stick to ways how things happen in recent history and in real countries. Obviously you refuse and continue to spit out bold BS about things that simply are not there. I have little tolerance for such stupidity, thus the conversation with you ends.

Nice of you to evade all my points and create straw men as usual. I will not respond to any more of your incoherent and meandering posts. Good day.

Yes it did have Multiple cultures,but America was not always "Multicultural" in the aspect that Multiculturalism is today,for you to even try and suggest that,is beyond me,America during the early years allowed the Black to develop it's own culture,whether or not you wish to agree with it,it is a fact.

We had already established earlier,that what is known as multiculturalism today,can be better described as Cultural relativism,due to self inflicting hatred from the dominant culture,America never loathed it's culture during the 17th century,So I see no relevance to this matter.

America was a Segregationist nation,It segregated colored cultures from white cultures,the same can be said for South Africa who had 11 Tribes with different cultures (By 18th century) and the Whites,never the less you had the whites,and then you had the segregated blacks,given a piece of land to self govern and the right to determine the way their culture progress' the key point historians neglect to mention is,that they turned it into a large rubbish bin and started moving into white national borders.

Today there is just one culture in South Africa,that is "Black Culture",the only problem in this instance is that the Majority blacks do not care to preserve the culture of either tribe,conflict occurs,specifically between the Xhoza and the Zulu.

A Minority white regime,did a better job in securing the determination of each culture than the black does today.

Conclusion,"pol pot" society does not work,even in a Majority black nation that host's a variety in cultures within a common race.

OVB

You are correct for some geographic parts of American society and you are incorrect for others. There were states that entered the union having already abolished slavery and having written equal rights into their state constitutions at the founding of the republic. There were states and territories that never had legal racial segregation.

And in ALL of America, there were always those people who broke the laws and traditions and associated in every way possible with people of other races and cultures.